ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

18.03.2026:

Oral Judgment: Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial)

This company appeal could be referred to as to be the best example for an utmost malicious recourse adopted by the Appellant to abuse the process of law and judicial proceedings. The Appellant had neither been fair to the learned NCLT nor to this Appellate Tribunal even, in the manner and diligence with which the Appellant has taken the proceedings before the various Courts and the Tribunals.

2. The instant company appeal is accompanied with an application seeking condonation of delay in refiling, being IA No.416/2026. Looking into the grounds taken therein, the delay of 29 days as prayed for by the Appellant in refiling the company appeal would stand ‘condoned’. Accordingly, IA No.416/2026 would stand ‘allowed’.

3. The challenge in the instant company appeal, as given by the Appellant is to the impugned order dated 16.12.2025 as passed on IA(IBC)/922/CHE/2025 in CP(IB)/39(CHE)/2018, which is said to have been preferred to seek the following reliefs: -

“1. Declare that the admission of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was illegal and obtained through fraudulent means.

2. Issue a detailed and reasoned order addressing each of the allegations raised, thereby contributing to the jurisprudence on fraudulent initiation of proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

3. Impose appropriate penalties and grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem just, in view of the irreparable financial and mental harm caused by the Respondents’ unlawful actions.

4. Pass such further or other orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, and thus render justice.”

4. For the brevity of facts, the reliefs sought in IA(IBC)/462(CHE)/2024 by the Appellant involved invoking the provisions contained under Section 379 of Bharathiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for the offence punishable u/s 227 to 229 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 r/w 424 of Companies Act, 213 and Rule 11 of NCLT Rules are extracted hereunder: -

“a. to record a finding to that effect;

b. to make a complaint thereof in writing;

c. to send it to a Magistrate of the First-Class having Jurisdiction;

d. to take sufficient Security for appearance of the Accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non- bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do, send the Accused in custody to such Magistrate.

e. bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate.”

The impugned order dated 16.12.2025 is a common order, which was also passed in this interlocutory application.

5. One of the questions that would be falling for consideration is as to, whether at all an order passed by a forum exercising the power under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, and consequentially a challenge given to that order in an Appeal under Section 61 of the I & B Code, 2016, could be maintainable before this Appellate Tribunal under the aforesaid provisions as extracted above. In the common order passed by learned NCLT dated 16.12.2025, it has been observed that the Appellant almost intends to draw a criminal proceeding, in relation to the provisions mentioned therein pertaining to Bharathiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The attempt which has been consciously made by the Appellant is nothing, but a malicious intent to blend the so-called intended criminal proceedings, which he intended to take against the Respondents by filing IA(IBC)/462/CHE/2024. A civil forum as that of the learned NCLT cannot be forced upon to perform criminal functions, under the penal provisions of the criminal law.

6. There could be yet another issue that would be required to be considered as to, whether at all the Appellant would have any locus, as such, to initiate a proceedings, to contest the same, and to continue it in the shape of the instant company appeal, particularly when, the admitted position of the Appellant happens to be that of a shareholder